Traveller-digest       Sunday, August 22 1999       Volume 1999 : Number 995



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: RE cute, fuzzy
Re: Experience System 
Re: Experience System
Re: Experience System
Re: Grav Deckplates
Re: Dear Loren W., RE: Hats Off to Jesse
re: Hudson-class Lander (GTL9)
G:T - In Bougainville Papua New Guinea
Re: Hal Clement...
Low ship weight
Re: Grav Deckplates
Re: Low ship weight
Re: Low ship weight
Re: Low ship weight
Re: Low ship weight
Re: Baby [OT, but traditional]
re: Grav Deckplates
Re: Low ship weight
Re: Grav Deckplates
Re: Grav deck plates.
Re: Low ship weight
Re: Insulting Leonard
Re: Grav Deckplates
Re: Grav Deckplates

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:49:19 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: RE cute, fuzzy

>  So run, don't walk, to hire your ewok mercs for that
>  next important battle.


I have another use for 'em, based on an observation I made. As well as being
the only beings in the universe to understand military science, they also
display almost total immunity to any kind of energy weapon (even AT-ST chin
blasters).

So, what I'm going to do is buy a Navy-surplus Imperial Class Star
Destroyer, and plate the hull in Ewok hide. This solution gives me an almost
invulnerable warship and rids the universe of the Teddy Bear nation.

Admiral Thrawn.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:55:54 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Experience System 

>> Personally, I wouldn't. I can't speak for anyone else, but game years
pass
>> pretty slowly in the games I've played in (except Ars Magica). I tend to
>> want my PCs to improve faster than that.
>
>Be quiet.


#:-p

That wasn't a comment on PBEM, Keven. Please don't kill my character...

Actually I meant face-to-face roleplaying. Most of my characters have never
really had time to get more than a year or two older. We've tended
not to have much downtime in the games I've played in.

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:04:45 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Experience System

>>Personally, I wouldn't. I can't speak for anyone else, but game years
>>pass pretty slowly in the games I've played in (except Ars Magica). I
>>tend to want my PCs to improve faster than that.
>
>Not if Ken is looking for 1 level per year. ;->
>
>During character generation the number of levels gained per year varies
from system to system.  So perhaps the experience system you use should vary
from system to system matching character generation.


Prolly best that way.

My group always had the philosophy that the learning rate during adventuring
was a lot higher than in downtime.  I think that makes sense, since in
everyday life I'm actually learning very little, just carrying out tasks I'm
fairly familiar with with no need to expand my abilities very much. During
more intensive periods though it's possible to learn at a much much higher
rate (usually the few weeks before an exam period...).

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:08:16 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Experience System

>enjoyable to him than even the playing, except when I arbitrated Amber. No
>point in that type of mindset with that game.

Yeah, to call Amber a ruleset is to miss the point of the game.

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:21:18 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Grav Deckplates

>Interesting thought. Except that then the most efficient layout for
>spherical ships is concentric spheres.


Mmmm....now there's a challenge. VRML deckplans, anyone?

NB

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:46:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Dear Loren W., RE: Hats Off to Jesse

>I'd think (and I don't know the Canadian exchange rate) $20-25(US) per
>shirt to allow some profit to the printer and to Jesse! Still within the
>range I've paid for souvenir shirts.
>
>Robert Prior wrote:
>> Well, I can do transfers at work. Kodak Pantone printer hooked up to a Mac
>> (we usually print from Photoshop). IIRC, transfers were $5 in real money
>> (not that overvalued US stuff :-) ).
>>
>> T-shirts would have to be bought. MEC has a nice organic cotton for $11, so
>> costs would be $16 Cdn + shipping. How does that look to folks?
>
>--
>Mike Peters
>travelleri@home.com

$20 US is about $30 Cdn. About on par for retail markup, when you consider
license fees to Marc, and compensation to Jesse and myself.

I'll check out printing supplies next week. The easiest way to handle
logistics is probably to collect orders and cheques, only cashing them when
I make/ship the shirts, and then posting Jesse and Marc their cuts of the
action. As it's Jesse's art, I'll let him decide on whether or not he wants
to go ahead with this, though.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: re: Hudson-class Lander (GTL9)

>Robert Prior writes:
>
>>Hm. Maybe I should add exterior speakers, so the Marines can play "Will ye
>>no come back again" to the fleeing enemy? :-)
>
>How about Wagner's "Flight of the Valkyries" as in _Appocalypse Now_?

OK, OK, we'll play "Flight of the Valkyries" while we approach, "Will ye no
come back again" after we land.

But _only_ if both songs are played on bagpipes. :-)


Hm. I'll have to finish writing up the nuclear-pumped pipes for The Silly
Era. Ye canna carry them oonder yer arrm, but their we notes carry for mile
across the glens. :-)

(Yet another product of the crazed Solomani inventor Nikolai von MacAngus.)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:51:03 EST
From: "Craig Brain" <cjbrain@hotmail.com>
Subject: G:T - In Bougainville Papua New Guinea

Well, I'm back on the List again and I wanted to tell you all that a few of 
us are looking at playing G:T over here in Papua New Guinea (Bougainville 
Province) while on a Peace Keeping Operation - Probably a Star Merc campaign 
(oddly).

This will be the first time that I have run G:T or any GURPS stuff for that 
matter. With the exception of GURPS Alien Races II, I have been fairly happy 
with what SJG have done with it, and I am looking forward to trying it. I 
didn't like the new version of the Aslan, I still prefer the DGP 
explanations and style in that particular case.

I am also 75% of the way through writing a G:T module, but may need somebody 
to do some floor plans for me using CC2 or something similar (no access to 
my software over here...)to do up plans for a 400t Labship, a scientific lab 
and a large installation. I am in the process of teaching myself how to use 
GURPS Vehicles and Robots and appreciate any advice anyone can offer.

Has anyone heard anything about a release date for Paul Sanders' Books?

Thanks,

Craig Brain.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 13:44:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cynthia Higginbotham <cyhiggin@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Hal Clement...

> In mail you write:
> 
> > Cynthia, did you ever read "Fuzzys and Other People"?  It was the 3rd book
> > in the Fuzzy Trilogy that was published 20 years after Piper's death.
> 
> The *real* third book, not the odd offshoots that the other authors
> came up with.

Yep, read all of them.

> I rather prefer that Fuzzies be native. 

either way, it is a good story.

> I also suspect that with education and training, Fuzzies could do quite
> a bit, even if you *did limit their INT & EDU scores a bit. A fuzzy
> chief engineer? No. A Fuzzy engineering assistant, yes. They'd be
> *great* at working in the "too small" spaces that so many designers
> include in the powerr plant and drive spaces.

That conjures up images of *shudder* "brownies". The Motie kind...
I still get the creeps remembering their takeover of one of the two
starships in the Mote expedition.

("Mote in God's Eye", Niven & Pournelle. Lanston Field seems to be 
the inspiration for Traveller's Black Globe.)

			--Cynthia

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 07:23:01 -0700
From: "John Palmer" <jpalme2000@digitalsomething.com>
Subject: Low ship weight

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BEEC6F.2A85F660
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Why are classic traveller ships have such small tonnage ratings? If it's =
in the FAQ, please point me in the right direction.

As a baseline, the current US space shuttle tips the scale at 312.5 tons =
empty and a remarkable  2253.1 tons fully loaded. =
(http://shuttle.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttlespecs.htm) The US B-52 bomber =
weighs 92.5 tons empty. =
(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html)

Some clarification would appreciated.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BEEC6F.2A85F660
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3401" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Why are classic traveller ships have such small =
tonnage=20
ratings? If it's in the FAQ, please point me in the right=20
direction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>As a baseline, the current US space shuttle tips the =
scale at=20
312.5 tons empty and a remarkable  2253.1 tons fully loaded. =
</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>(<A=20
href=3D"http://shuttle.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttlespecs.htm">http://shuttle.msf=
c.nasa.gov/shuttlespecs.htm</A>)=20
</FONT><FONT size=3D2>The US B-52 bomber weighs 92.5 tons empty. (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html)">http=
://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html)</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Some clarification would=20
appreciated.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BEEC6F.2A85F660--

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:30:11 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: Re: Grav Deckplates

>And there might be "ornamental" partial bulkheads extending out into
>the "pit" corridors. Which become ledges, just big enough to walk on
>when g-comp is out. Doors tend to be placed so that you have either no
>drop or a very short drop to such a ledge.

Also possible are:

Doors that open into the corridoor and lock at 90 degrees to form ledges. Door
hinges are always to the rear of the ship. Doors are never further than 3 feet
from the rear wall of a cabin so they can always be reached when gravity is at
90 degrees to normal.

Spring loaded floor panels, hinged at the back end. They are normally held down
by the G field. When the G field fails or when ships thrust exceeds compensation
they fall flat against wall ledges to form a new floor. They leave a one foot
gap at the old ceiling to allow access to the old ceiling/new wall ladder.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 10:55:14 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Low ship weight

At 07:23 AM 8/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>   Why are classic traveller ships have such small tonnage  ratings?
>If it's in the FAQ, please point me in the right  direction.   As a
>baseline, the current US space shuttle tips the scale at  312.5 tons
>empty and a remarkable  2253.1 tons fully loaded.
>(http://shuttle.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttlespecs.htm)  The US B-52 bomber
>weighs 92.5 tons empty.
>(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html)   Some
>clarification would  appreciated. 

	Depends on whether you're talking real-world tonnage or "Traveller"
tonnage, which is actually *volume*.  A 100 "ton" scout/courier is up
around a thousand tons *mass*. 
- -- ------------------------------------------------------------ --
   Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj 

   Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they 
   did it by killing all those who opposed them.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:01:56 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Low ship weight

    Why are classic traveller ships have such small tonnage ratings? If it's
in the FAQ, please point me in the right direction.


    If you mean the tonnage as in "100-ton scout" then this really refers to
displaced volume, measured in metric tonnes of liquid hydrogen (LH2),
sometimes called a "displacement ton". This comes out at 14 cubic metres.
(Water-based ships float, so their displacement is related to mass.
Spaceships are effectively immersed in their environment, so displacement is
related to volume.)

    As far as actual mass is concerned, ships tend to have a density of
between 0.5 and 2 tonnes per metre cubed, so one displacement ton will
really account for around fourteen tonnes of mass.

    Hope that helps (and is what you meant).

    Nick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:26:30 -0700
From: "John Palmer" <jpalme2000@digitalsomething.com>
Subject: Re: Low ship weight

That helps, but also confuses me a bit... I found good tonnage definitions
at (http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictT.html#ton) and have included them
for reference....

>If you mean the tonnage as in "100-ton scout" then this really refers to
>displaced volume, measured in metric tonnes of liquid hydrogen (LH2),
>sometimes called a "displacement ton". This comes out at 14 cubic metres.
>(Water-based ships float, so their displacement is related to mass.
>Spaceships are effectively immersed in their environment, so displacement
is
>related to volume.)

That's what I was looking for.

Is the amount of cargo space on a ship measured in displacement tons,
registered tons, or freight tons? Do you have to make a conversion for the
cargo space on a ship? It seems that you could carry a lot of freight tons
in the volume of a cargo hold measured by LH2 displacement.

It's kinda cute to think of jump capable ships with cargo capacity measured
in tuns of wine.

JP

- -----Original Message-----
From: David J. Golden <goldendj@pcisys.net>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
Date: Sunday, August 22, 1999 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Low ship weight


>At 07:23 AM 8/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>   Why are classic traveller ships have such small tonnage  ratings?
>>If it's in the FAQ, please point me in the right  direction.   As a
>>baseline, the current US space shuttle tips the scale at  312.5 tons
>>empty and a remarkable  2253.1 tons fully loaded.
>>(http://shuttle.msfc.nasa.gov/shuttlespecs.htm)  The US B-52 bomber
>>weighs 92.5 tons empty.
>>(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html)   Some
>>clarification would  appreciated.
>
> Depends on whether you're talking real-world tonnage or "Traveller"
>tonnage, which is actually *volume*.  A 100 "ton" scout/courier is up
>around a thousand tons *mass*.
>-- ------------------------------------------------------------ --
>   Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj
>
>   Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they
>   did it by killing all those who opposed them.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:34:25 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Low ship weight

At 08:26 AM 8/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>That helps, but also confuses me a bit... I found good tonnage
definitions
>at (http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictT.html#ton) and have
included them
>for reference....
>
>>If you mean the tonnage as in "100-ton scout" then this really
refers to
>>displaced volume, measured in metric tonnes of liquid hydrogen
(LH2),
>>sometimes called a "displacement ton". This comes out at 14 cubic
metres.
>>(Water-based ships float, so their displacement is related to mass.
>>Spaceships are effectively immersed in their environment, so
displacement
>is
>>related to volume.)
>
>That's what I was looking for.
>
>Is the amount of cargo space on a ship measured in displacement
tons,
>registered tons, or freight tons? Do you have to make a conversion
for the
>cargo space on a ship? It seems that you could carry a lot of
freight tons
>in the volume of a cargo hold measured by LH2 displacement.

	In non-GT versions of Traveller, ships are rated *strictly* by
volume. One displacement ton is the volume taken up by one (metric,
mass) ton of liquid hydrogen, or about 14 cubic meters. Cargo space,
fuel tankage, everything. One ton=14m^3.

	As you've noticed, there are a few problems with this:

	- Carrying one (displacement) ton of iridium should be a much
greater load on a ship than one (displacement) ton of feathers. As an
option for greater realism, for example, /Traveller:The New Era/
allowed for you to calculate the performance of ships based on their
actual mass rather than volume. But that's a slippery road to go
down. To be truly consistent, you'd have to be constantly
recalculating ship performance based on how much fuel had been used
so far.

	For simplicity's sake, I considered going so far as to precalculate
ship performance every 10% of fuel, i.e. performance at 100% fuel is
xG, performance at 90% fuel is yG, etc. You'd still have to adjust
for cargo loading.

	- It can get confusing, because vehicles, equipment, etc. are all
rated in *mass*, not volume. How many 1.5 ton (mass) automobiles CAN
you fit into your cargo bay?

Disclaimer: Note I said non-GT versions of Traveller ... due to real
life, I haven't been near a game store in over a year, and haven't
checked out GT versions ...
- -- ------------------------------------------------------------ --
   Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj 

   Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they 
   did it by killing all those who opposed them.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:33:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cynthia Higginbotham <cyhiggin@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Baby [OT, but traditional]

> Quick announcement: My Wife and I have just been blessed with a baby girl,
> Tammalyn Elizabeth Hostman; 3.335kg, 47cm, 19:38 Alaska Daylight Time, 19
> August 1999.
> 
> Wil (who will be unavailable for the next week.)
> 
Congratulations!
Best of luck for you and yours :-)

			-Cynthia

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 09:42:19 -0700
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@home.com>
Subject: re: Grav Deckplates

>Which doe, of course, suggest an alternative means of playing ping-pong.
>Next time you're boarded, simply turn off grav compensation in all the
>compartments you suspect have been compromised, and let your pilot play
>around with 6-gee evasive manoevring.....

This may be somewhat heretical, but I've always been dubious of "grav pong"
to repel boarders. From illustrations of the inside of starships, it
doesn't look like furniture, cargo, carried craft, and interior fixtures
are attached to bulkheads sufficiently strongly to stay put during variable
multi-G lateral acceleration. Moreover, most interior walls are not
load-bearing and wouldn't withstand the impact of, say, an air/raft at 4
Gs. This leads me to suspect anyone attempting to bounce boarders around
would quickly destroy the inside of their ship.

- --
IMTU t4+ ru ge+ !3i(3i++) jt-- au+ ls- 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 17:51:17 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Low ship weight

>Is the amount of cargo space on a ship measured in displacement tons,
>registered tons, or freight tons? Do you have to make a conversion for the
>cargo space on a ship? It seems that you could carry a lot of freight tons
>in the volume of a cargo hold measured by LH2 displacement.


A freight ton is also 14 cubic metres, as far as I'm aware.

A 200-ton (2,800 m3) free trader which was 25% cargo space would have
capacity for 50 tons (700 m3) of cargo.

Most design sequences assume that freight does not exceed 1000km per m3 (the
density of water). It's widely assumed that really dense items of freight
are packaged in containers with a lot of waste space to keep the density
below that value.

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 17:53:06 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Grav Deckplates

>This may be somewhat heretical, but I've always been dubious of "grav pong"
>to repel boarders.

Me too (I don't personally allow it IMTU), but I thought I'd suggest the
idea anyway.

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:40:30 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Grav deck plates.

At 12:44 PM 8/23/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Or say that they are responsible for g-comp as well as for atrificial
> >gravity. If the ship is of a "typical" layout, and under even *one* g
> >of acceleration, it's going to be a long fall down the shaft that used
> >to be the main corridor. :-)
>
>
>Which doe, of course, suggest an alternative means of playing ping-pong.
>Next time you're boarded, simply turn off grav compensation in all the
>compartments you suspect have been compromised, and let your pilot play
>around with 6-gee evasive manoevring.....
>
>NB

That was my solution in a (forgive me, I have sinned... I was young, 
naive...) Star Trek game once.  After the bad guys transported to our 
bridge.  Hold on to the console, and just flip the AG on and off.... as 
everyone floats off the deck and then crashes back down.

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:50:51 -0400
From: "Thomas Schoene" <TomSchoene@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Low ship weight

- ----------
> From: David J. Golden <goldendj@pcisys.net>
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: Re: Low ship weight
> Date: Sunday, 22 August, 1999 1:34 PM
> 
> 	For simplicity's sake, I considered going so far as to precalculate
> ship performance every 10% of fuel, i.e. performance at 100% fuel is
> xG, performance at 90% fuel is yG, etc. You'd still have to adjust
> for cargo loading.
> 
> 	- It can get confusing, because vehicles, equipment, etc. are all
> rated in *mass*, not volume. How many 1.5 ton (mass) automobiles CAN
> you fit into your cargo bay?
> 
> Disclaimer: Note I said non-GT versions of Traveller ... due to real
> life, I haven't been near a game store in over a year, and haven't
> checked out GT versions ...
>

GT still rates cargo by volume, but calculates ship performance by mass. 
For simplicity, cargo mass is approximated at 5 mass tons per displacement
ton, which may be too low; most commercial designs should also be rated at
their "overload" condition of 20 mass tons per displacement ton of cargo. 
(Sometimes it's also worthwhile to calculate fueled and unfueled
performance; it can make a significant difference in light, high-Jump
ships.)

On the question of carrying vehicles as cargo, this is one of the few good
results of the detailed GURPS Vehicles design system*; it produces a volume
figure as well as a mass figure.  Vehicles are treated as
"Roll-on/Roll-off" cargo, which takes up twice its actual volume in cargo
space.  

* otherwise, Vehicles takes for too much work for the results, and takes up
way too much space in the source books.  IMHO, of course.

Tom Schoene

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 01:24:41 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Insulting Leonard

On 20 Aug, Benyamene' ZeAbe' Akella <xrp@sierratel.com>
pretending to be Justice Hypercleats <eris@sierratel.com> wrote much that
has been snipped, but also:

> Asterisks before and after a word are not to indicate
> condescension. They indicate itallics, at least as far as I know.

Interesting.

I thought asterisks represent bold or emphasis.

Also that underscores represent underlining, which represents italics.

Phil Kitching

- -- 
Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technology Division
"Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the galaxy."
http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/traveller/deckplans/

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 01:11:21 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Grav Deckplates

Walt, a couple of IYTU questions:

On 20 Aug, Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU> wrote:

<snip>

> IMTU, I just made it take a while for grav plates to build up "charges".
> Not a long time, a matter of minutes for the usual 1G to tens of
> minutes for the heaviest plates (which weren't that heavy). 

So, if the drives are running at max thrust and someone turns them off,
are all loose items thrown against the ceiling/front of the ship?

> I also had the field a little limited - say, two or three meters above
> the field, and an area a little bit around the field.

I assumue that you don't have ships with decks parallel to the axis
of thrust (eg Type A free trader) where there are long corridors which
would turn into lift shafts after the first few metres.

<snip>

> The idea of a grav plate at the far end of a corridor being effective at
> turning the corridor into a deadly pit always struck me as a little wrong
> anyway. How is a grav plate the size of the corridor going to project
> effects tens of meters away, when the usual floor-section sized
> grav plate only effects its section of one deck?

IMTU I chose the "field created between plates in floor and ceiling"
option. I also have plates at the top and bottom of all lift shafts
(aka fore-aft corridors).

Phil Kitching

- -- 
Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technology Division
"Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the galaxy."
http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/traveller/deckplans/

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 11:44:28 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Grav Deckplates

In mail you write:

>>Interesting thought. Except that then the most efficient layout for
>>spherical ships is concentric spheres.
>
> Mmmm....now there's a challenge. VRML deckplans, anyone?

What's "VRML"?

Personally, I think it'd only be practical for ships that never landed.
Otherwise, it'd be next to impossible to get around in the ship while
refits were being done. 

It'd sure confuse the heck out of boarding parties though. :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #995
**********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
